The Derrick, a historic small-town newspaper in Oil City, PA, ceases publication after 150 years amid industry decline.

OIL CITY, Pennsylvania — The Derrick will be no more.

Derrick Publishing Company, publisher of The Derrick and The News-Herald, announced on Feb. 5 that it will cease publication. Employees were told the decision was driven by the long-term decline in support for newspapers, along with regional losses in employment, retail activity, advertising revenue and readership.

The last day of publication of both newspapers will be March 20.

Founded in 1871 as the Daily Derrick by C.E. Bishop & Company, The Derrick earned an international reputation for the quality of its reporting. Its correspondents’ dispatches and wire stories were circulated around the world, including its authoritative publication of oil spot prices — set in Oil City — as well as widely used annual statistical compendiums.

By 1871, this region was firmly established as oil country, a transformation that began just 13 years earlier when Edwin Drake struck oil in what had been the rugged wilderness of western Pennsylvania, a land of dense forests and more bears than people.

People who lived here in the mid-18th century always noticed the green-black oil that lingered on the top of Oil Creek. Aside from using it for a primitive medical salve, locals mostly ignored its presence.

At the time, the nation stood on the cusp of the Industrial Revolution, but meeting the growing demand for reliable illuminating oil posed a major challenge. Whale oil had become prohibitively expensive, and whaling was rapidly depleting the population. Alternatives such as lard oil, tallow oil and coal oil distilled from shale existed, but none were yet abundant or affordable enough to meet the country’s needs.

The shortage of affordable lighting fuel was slowing both industrial expansion and urban growth. Without reliable light after dark, factories stood idle, and businesses closed their doors at sunset.

That changed when Drake successfully drilled for oil — the first person to deliberately extract it from beneath the earth’s surface. His breakthrough sparked the oil boom and made kerosene a practical, widely available commodity.

Land prices soared, and boomtowns such as Pithole City sprang up almost overnight. Speculators drilled wells wherever they could, sometimes erecting derricks directly beside, or even atop, one another. Fortunes were chased at a fever pitch, with little regard for the toll on the land or on rival workers. Conditions in the fields were perilous, and accidents were frequent, often fatal.

Fortunes were won, lost, won again, and lost sometimes forever as these wildcatters would try to make sense of the fluctuations of the price of oil.

At the time, nowhere else in the world was drilling for oil. The region’s economy exploded with growth, but the boom came at a steep cost as vast stretches of lush, green wilderness were cleared and scarred in the rush for petroleum.

And until The Daily Derrick began reporting on it, there was little sustained coverage of the industrial engine transforming the region — the oil trade that fueled the rising steel centers of Pittsburgh and Cleveland. There was also scant attention paid to a Cleveland bookkeeper named John D. Rockefeller, whose financial discipline and business instincts would eventually allow him to dominate the industry as founder of Standard Oil.

As energy author Bob McNally put it in his 2017 book “Crude Volatility: The History and the Future of Boom-Bust Oil Prices,” “The Derrick’s the sole source for continuous reporting on prices, news, and fundamentals for the early decades of the modern oil industry.”

The Derrick’s reporting, research and daily documentation of the oil industry became an essential source for Ida Tarbell, the famed muckraking journalist, as she chronicled the “oil wars” of the 1870s.

Tarbell, whose family life was affected by the domination of the industry because her father had been an independent oil man, is known by journalists for her 19-part series “The History of the Standard Oil Company,” published from November 1902 through October 1904 in McClure’s Magazine and published as a book in 1904.

Her work brought national attention to the untapped impact industrial monopolies would have on American businesses and was considered a catalyst to the Supreme Court’s decision to break up the Standard Oil monopoly.

Without the reporting of The Derrick, she may have never been able to write her serial or her book.

In a month, it will be gone. Its passing will likely draw less attention than the possible closure of the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette 90 miles to the south, the 300 jobs recently cut at The Washington Post 300 miles away, or the 50 positions eliminated at the Atlanta Journal-Constitution 800 miles from here.

It is part of a crisis no one seems able to solve. Last year alone, more than 135 newspapers across the country shut their doors, the latest chapter in a two-decade decline. Since 2005, the number of newspapers published in the United States has fallen from 7,325 to fewer than 4,500.

Today’s front page of the Derrick featured a story on tempers flaring at a Sugarcreek Borough meeting, alongside coverage of township council sessions and local school board debates. It also included reporting on the everyday issues shaping life in the region — snow removal, flooding, road closures and legislation in Harrisburg that could affect residents’ lives.

That kind of coverage will now disappear. So will the ability to speak truth to power. The power here may not be what it was in the 1870s, but someone still needs to hold water authorities, county commissioners and school boards accountable — and soon, no one will be left to do it.

It’s troubling when a major city such as Pittsburgh or a powerful hub like Washington, D.C., loses local journalism. But it may matter even more in a small community such as Oil City, where the loss creates a true news desert, weakening the region’s social fabric, eroding its sense of connection, and leaving those in power with no guardrails at all.

In small towns especially, the loss can depress local voter engagement and open the door to government corruption and incompetence when no one is left to hold officials accountable.

There are no easy answers. Newspapers, long sustained by benevolent — and often wealthy — owners, have seen the revenue streams that once supported them evaporate: legal notices, classifieds, major retail advertising and paid print subscriptions have all declined in the internet era.

But the loss of local newspapers doesn’t just affect the journalists who worked there. It harms residents too — people who may never learn that a water authority decision could raise their taxes, or that there was even a public meeting where they could have voiced objections.

    Salena Zito is a staff reporter and columnist for the Washington Examiner. She reaches the Everyman and Everywoman through shoe-leather journalism, traveling from Main Street to the beltway and all places in between. To find out more about Salena and read her past columns, please visit the Creators Syndicate webpage at http://www.creators.com.

Salena Zito 2:00 PM | February 21, 2026

Source: One of the Most Important Small-Town Papers of the Industrial Age Closing – HotAir

Parallels between the fall of Rome and the looming collapse of the modern West.

Western Europe, traditionally viewing itself as the cultural and institutional heir to Greco-Roman antiquity, confronts anxieties reminiscent of the late Roman experience.

The Western Roman Empire did not collapse suddenly or for a single reason; rather, it disintegrated through the cumulative interaction of internal fragility and external pressures. In a comparable manner, contemporary Europe and its cultural extensions are facing demographic imbalance, institutional erosion, cultural exhaustion, and sustained migratory pressures. While historical analogy should be applied cautiously, the parallels between late antiquity and the present are striking enough to warrant closer scrutiny.

Historians have debated Rome’s fall for centuries, attributing it variously to barbarian invasions, economic stagnation, overextension, corruption, climate fluctuation or epidemic disease. Modern scholarship prefers “multi-” to “unicausality.” Thus, Rome fell because its political, demographic, economic, and cultural systems insidiously eroded, decreasing resilience in the face of external shocks. In a civilizational perspective, the modern West appears vulnerable along four analogous dimensions: (a) large-scale migration, (b) demographic decline among native populations, (c) cultural decadence or exhaustion, and (d) the erosion of core institutions. If these trends continue unchecked, the foundational achievements of Western civilization—constitutional governance, individual liberty, and the rule of law—may suffer irreparable damage.

The Western Roman Empire saw a “civilian invasion” reflecting extensive population movements during the Migration Period (c. 300–600). Not so much as raiders as displaced populations seeking security, land, and opportunity, migrating tribes—Visigoths, Ostrogoths, Vandals, Franks, and Saxons—crossed the eastern border (Limes). Incursions by Huns and other nomadic groups further destabilized border regions. At the same time, the capacity of Roman legions to repel migrants decreased. The Rhine crossing of 406 symbolized the breakdown of Roman border control, culminating in the sack of Rome in 410 and the deposition of Romulus Augustulus, the last emperor, in 476.

Westward migrations were never inherently aggressive. In fact, barbarians admired Roman civilization, determined to enjoy the benefits of order and prosperity. However, Rome’s internal challenges—political instability, reliance on foederati, and erosion of military discipline—meant that integration increasingly failed. Autonomous power structures emerged by default, Roman law lost authority, and imperial cohesion dissolved. What proved fatal was not “diversity” as such, but state inability to assimilate newcomers into a shared civic and legal culture, defining and transmitting a unifying identity.

Contemporary Europe experiences demographic transformation through sustained mass immigration, particularly from regions whose indigenous populations—Christians and Jews—have been persecuted and oppressed by Muslims since the seventh century. As of the mid-2020s, the latter constituted approximately 6% of Europe’s population, with projections varying widely depending on migration and fertility trends. A reflection of deeply entrenched dogmatism in the diasporic ummah, security services have documented disproportionate involvement of immigrants in terrorist activity. These realities place strain on intelligence, policing, and social cohesion, analogous—though not identical—to the external pressures experienced by Rome when its borders gave way.

Demographic decline constituted a critical internal challenge in late Rome. From the late Republic onward, elite fertility rates fell sharply. Augustus attempted to reverse this trend through the Lex Iulia (18 BC) and Lex Papia Poppaea (9 AD), which incentivized marriage and childbirth. Despite these measures, economic burdens, urbanization, inheritance practices, and changing social norms limited success. Recurrent epidemics—most notably the Antonine Plague (165–180)—accelerated the population reduction, contributing to labor shortages and military vulnerability.

Contemporary Western societies face comparable demographic challenges. Fertility rates across Europe and North America remain well below replacement level. Scholars identify multiple causes: secularization, delayed family formation, economic insecurity, and the prioritization of individual autonomy over collective continuity. Immigrant populations normally exhibit higher fertility, gradually reshaping demographic profiles.

Douglas Murray’s argument in The Strange Death of Europe (2017) centers on this demographic asymmetry, a looming collapse that both presupposes and aggravates a loss of cultural self-confidence. Rather than holding immigration solely responsible for decline, he emphasizes what he sees as elite reluctance to articulate or defend Western cultural norms, compounded by historical guilt. While critics fault him for “selective evidence”, his central claim—that demographic decline among native populations weakens societal continuity—is broadly supported in demographic literature. Importantly, he refuses to assert demographic “replacement” as an inevitable biological process, identifying a political and cultural failure of integration and confidence.

Rome’s own demographic weakness forced reliance on barbarian recruits and settlers, altering the composition and loyalty of its institutions. Population reduction thus became not only a numerical problem but also a structural one, undermining resilience and continuity.

In The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire (1776–1788), Edward Gibbon famously attributed Rome’s fall in part to moral decline, though modern historians interpret “decadence” less as hedonism than as institutional complacency. Much as Roman elites indulged in luxury, the deeper issue lay in decreasing civic engagement, economic rigidity, and dependence on coercive bureaucracy. Citizens disengaged from public responsibility, content with state provision of entertainment and sustenance.

In the modern West, cultural decadence manifests less through excess than through relativism and institutional self-doubt. Universities, once guardians of intellectual tradition, prioritize ideological conformity over scholarly rigor. Critics argue that identity-based frameworks displace universalist inquiry, eroding shared academic foundations. Addressing overall trends, commentators such as Eric Zemmour contend that multiculturalism undermines social cohesion—a claim with historical precedent in Rome’s gradual cultural fragmentation.

A particularly vivid symptom of this cultural exhaustion is the widespread iconoclasm directed at symbols of Western heritage by younger generations. Following the 2020 Black Lives Matter protests, activists—typically university students and indiscriminate hooligans, as ideologically uncompromising as historically ignorant—toppled or defaced statues of figures like Christopher Columbus in Boston and Minneapolis, Edward Colston (a slave trader) in Bristol, and even Founding Fathers such as George Washington and Thomas Jefferson, whose legacies include slavery despite their roles in establishing freedoms. In Portland, statues of Abraham Lincoln and Theodore Roosevelt were pulled down amid accusations of racism towards Native Americans.

Similar actions targeted colonial-era monuments in Europe, including those of King Leopold II in Belgium. Proponents view these acts as “reckoning” with historical injustices, removing glorification of oppression from public spaces. Yet critics, including Murray, see them as manifestations of profound self-loathing: a rejection of the West’s complex inheritance, where imperfect figures advanced enlightenment values, rule of law, and the individual rights underpinning modern liberty.

This turning against one’s own civilizational symbols echoes Rome’s late-era apathy towards its proud traditions. By denying pride in ancestors who, flaws notwithstanding, forged a heritage of freedom and innovation, young Westerners risk forfeiting their birthright to a confident future. Masochistic gestures do not erase history but signal a tragic reluctance to defend or transmit it, leaving societies vulnerable to invasion—just as Rome’s loss of cultural assertiveness proved fatal amid external pressures.

Cultural exhaustion erodes the willingness to defend inherited norms. As Rome’s citizens increasingly avoided military service, contemporary Western societies exhibit decreasing civic participation and trust. This erosion does not destroy societies immediately, but renders them vulnerable to disciplined ideological movements, whether Islamist or Marxist.

Institutional decline ultimately sealed Rome’s fate. The third-century crisis exposed systemic fragility: rapid imperial turnover, fiscal collapse, and military mutiny. Diocletian’s reforms delayed collapse but entrenched bureaucracy and authoritarianism. The permanent division of the empire in 395 weakened the West irreversibly. By the fifth century, taxation crushed agricultural productivity, trade plummeted, and law receded.

Parallels in the modern West include decreasing trust in democratic institutions, polarization, and executive overreach. Secularization has left a moral vacuum, with Christianity’s social influence waning sharply across Europe. While profane governance is not invariably destabilizing, the loss of shared metaphysical assumptions complicates social cohesion. In America Alone (2006), Mark Steyn’s warnings of civilizational decline—predictably criticized for “alarmism”—underscore the risks of institutional fragmentation and cultural disunity.

The fall of Rome inaugurated centuries of economic regression and cultural contraction in Western Europe. While history never repeats mechanically, it may rhyme. The modern West is caught in an identity crisis. Renewal remains possible, as demonstrated by Byzantium’s example, but only through deliberate reaffirmation of demographic vitality, institutional integrity, cultural confidence, and moral purpose. Rome’s lesson is not that decline is inevitable, but that neglect ensures it.

Lars Møller | February 22, 2026

Source: Echoes of Empire – American Thinker

Here is what happened, and where the justices were coming from.

The Supreme Court’s February 20, 2026 decision in Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump (consolidated with Trump v. V.O.S. Selections, Inc.) is a striking illustration of the enduring tension between strict adherence to constitutional procedure and the pursuit of practical policy outcomes.  In a 6-3 ruling, the Court invalidated the administration’s use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to impose its broad “reciprocal” tariffs (applied to nearly all trading partners to address trade deficits) and “trafficking” tariffs (targeting imports from Canada, Mexico, and China to combat fentanyl flows and border security threats).  This outcome highlights a fundamental question: When does insistence on procedural perfection undermine effective governance?

The Binary Frame Imposed by the Court

The administration treated tariffs as a multifaceted tool capable of addressing several interconnected problems at once.  Economically, they aimed to reduce persistent trade imbalances and protect domestic industries.  Legally, they relied on IEEPA’s emergency authority to act swiftly.  Strategically, they linked trade policy to national security imperatives, including border control and the fentanyl crisis.  This approach sought to solve multiple challenges through a single mechanism, creating a layered, three-dimensional strategy.

The Supreme Court, however, reduced the issue to a simpler, two-dimensional conflict.  Chief Justice Roberts, writing for the majority (joined in full by Justices Sotomayor, Kagan, Gorsuch, Barrett, and Jackson on key holdings), emphasized that tariffs are taxes and that Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution assigns the taxing power exclusively to Congress.  The Court rejected the administration’s interpretation of IEEPA’s language (“regulate … importation”) as authorizing broad tariff imposition, pointing to the absence of historical precedent and invoking the Major Questions Doctrine: Significant new powers cannot be inferred from vague or ambiguous statutory wording.  By enforcing this strict procedural boundary, the Court dismantled the administration’s policy, confining future action to a narrower, more conventional legislative path.

The Collapse of a Multidimensional Approach

The administration’s strategy had attempted to balance three distinct but overlapping dimensions:

• Economic and trade policy
• Statutory emergency authority
• National security and border-related imperatives

The ruling effectively eliminated executive flexibility on the third dimension, forcing the policy back into a two-dimensional space dominated by congressional authority and explicit statutory limits.  This flattening of a complex problem into a simpler opposition — executive overreach versus congressional prerogative — mirrors a broader pattern in modern governance: multidimensional challenges reduced to binary choices that limit adaptive options and increase the risk of gridlock or escalation.

The Administration’s Immediate Reorientation

Rather than accepting the Court’s two-dimensional constraint, the administration responded swiftly with alternative legal pathways.  Within hours, it invoked Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974 (balance-of-payments authority) to impose a temporary 10% global tariff for 150 days.  It also signaled plans to reframe the invalidated tariffs under more targeted statutes, such as Sections 301 (addressing unfair trade practices) and 232 (national security threats).  These moves preserved much of the original policy intent while aligning with procedurally narrower, more defensible statutory authority.  The pivot demonstrated resilience: when one avenue is blocked, shift to others that achieve similar ends through different means.

Divisions Within the Court’s Reasoning

The 6-3 vote concealed meaningful internal differences among the justices, revealing competing priorities:

• Roberts, Gorsuch, and Barrett focused on structural integrity and the Major Questions Doctrine, prioritizing the long-term stability of constitutional boundaries over short-term policy gains.
• The dissenters (Thomas, Kavanaugh, and Alito) emphasized practical necessity, arguing that the emergency context — fentanyl deaths, trade imbalances, and border vulnerabilities — justified broader executive latitude.

Even within the majority, concurrences varied in emphasis — some stressing textual limits, others constitutional principles — showing that interpretive disagreements can create subtle but significant variations in how rigid rules are applied.

A Fundamental Stress Test

At its core, the decision poses a classic dilemma: Is the “perfect” enforcement of constitutional procedure the enemy of the “good” policy result?  The majority viewed the constitutional framework as fixed and non-negotiable: If the legal machinery is bent to achieve immediate objectives, the system risks long-term instability and erosion of checks and balances.  The administration, by contrast, contended that rigid adherence to procedure at the expense of urgent national needs — economic security, public health, border integrity — undermines the very purpose of government: to protect and serve the people.

This ruling is more than a tariff case.  It is a structural stress test for American governance in an era of accelerating crises and rapid technological change.  As problems grow increasingly interconnected and urgent, the tension between procedural purity and pragmatic flexibility will only intensify.  The Court’s insistence on congressional primacy may safeguard institutional integrity, but it also raises the question of whether such constraints will enable timely adaptation or instead drive reliance on workarounds, political brinkmanship, and alternative power centers.

In the end, the decision reminds us that governance is not merely about following rules; it is about whether those rules remain capable of addressing the real-world challenges they were designed to manage.  When perfection in process blocks progress toward the common good, the system faces a choice: Preserve the machine at all costs, or risk bending it to preserve the people it serves.

David DeMay | February 22, 2026

Source: What Happened with the Tariffs Ruling – American Thinker

No, Mrs. Clinton: Christian Men (and Women) Are Part of the Solution to the World’s Woes

Earlier this week, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said out loud what many socially conservative Christian believers have long suspected radical factions of culture contend to be fact:

White, Christian, heterosexual men are the cause of all kinds of problems, and maybe even behind the collapse of Western Civilization itself.

Speaking on MS NOW’s “Morning Joe,” Mrs. Clinton stated:

We haven’t gotten to the more perfect union, and we fought a civil war over part of it. And people have been protesting, you know, for hundreds of years that, you know, things were not as they should be, given our ideals and how we should be moving toward them. So I think that’s what makes us so special as a country.

Then came the kill shot:

And the idea that you could turn the clock back and try to recreate a world that never was, dominated by, you know, let’s say it, white men of a certain persuasion, a certain religion, a certain point of view, a certain ideology, is just doing such damage to what we should be aiming for. And we were on the path toward that, I mean, imperfectly, lots of, you know, bumps along the way. 

Mrs. Clinton’s claim that conservatives are trying to go back to a time that didn’t exist belies a fundamental fact:

In most cases, it’s the radicals who are trying to jump ahead and reimagine a world that never was.

Since the beginning of time, it’s been established there are two genders — male and female. Suggesting that one’s biological sex at birth is malleable is pure lunacy. There is no such thing as a “trans” anybody. It’s made up. It’s make believe. It’s rooted in mental illness.

The sexual revolution that strived to separate sex from marriage has wreaked unspeakable harm and wrecked countless lives and families.

Redefining the family is a radical act that seeks to shake upside down and inside out multi-millennia-old norms. Commodifying children via surrogacy and reckless fertility treatments is something that’s never been done before, and not simply because the technology to do so hasn’t previously existed.

Regardless of political ideology, it’s long been understood that children thrive in a family with a married mother and father. In fact, it’s been a given for thousands of years that no child should be deliberately deprived of having one of both. It’s been common sense. Until now. It’s now increasingly uncommon for the radical revolutionaries to put the interests of children in front of their own selfish lusts and desires.

Hillary Clinton’s broad swipe attack on biblical Christianity is curious in its lack of specificity. We’re left to speculate on what she meant, but she presumably doesn’t approve of the way many of us have sought to see the world through the truths of scripture: the sanctity of life, the exclusivity of one-man, one-woman marriage, two genders, etc.

But if not for Scripture’s teachings, the world would be in far worse shape than it currently is. Christianity has brought enormous advances in education, medicine, human rights, science, the arts and numerous other areas. Christian philanthropy has eased suffering and served countless people through the ages. It has been a bright light in an otherwise darkening world.

One of the great ironies surrounding attacks on America’s Judeo-Christian heritage is that the people attacking it almost all have their platforms because of it.

Yet, Hillary Clinton is right about this one thing: Biblical Christianity is doing damage to the radical ideas that comprise the agenda of those who seek to upend the teachings of God’s timeless Word — and that is a very good thing.

by Paul Batura | February 19, 2026 | Culture – Daily Citizen

Source: Hillary Clinton Says White Christian Men Are the Problem